Editorial Bethesda developer explains why TB is obsolete

[JarlFrank]

I know everyone knows this but I want to say it anyway: Starcraft isn't an RPG.

It already has stats, though. All you need to do is add loot and it would be.

So Warcraft 3 is an RPG?

 

[merry andrew]

I know everyone knows this but I want to say it anyway: Starcraft isn't an RPG.

It already has stats, though. All you need to do is add loot and it would be.

Don't forget dialogue skills.

 

[mister lamat]

alliances in multiplayer. all dialogue, all machivellian.

 

[elander_]

I'm glad it's clear now that TB and RT have completely different game mechanics that thus are played for different reasons.

People who insist that RT will improve role-playing don't know the difference between role-playing and visual realism and animation realism.

The argument is that TB limitations can't model someone who shoots and runs at the same time or someone that while falling reaches his hand to grab a rope. This problems could perhaps be adressed from a TB perspective by adding better rules.

The other argument is that TB has too much micromanagement. I can understand this. While playing Fallout Tactics sometimes a battle was ended before every npc was dead, because my team had a supierior position and better equipment. In these situations i would simply turn to RT with the Enter key and let my team mates finish them off. I would only have to move them around. This is why i like the RT/TB switch.

 

[merry andrew]

alliances in multiplayer. all dialogue, all machivellian.

3-way on the telephone is equally awesome.

 

[mister lamat]

a) Chess is one of the most advanced strategy games ever created. No RT game has managed to come close to chess' levels of depth, complexity, and the number of tactical options, which explains why the game survived for centuries.

baseball is far more complex and strategic compared to chess. real-time too. the higher level to which you take it, the greater the difference between the two. from who you put on first, to which free agents you draft and right down to how much you charge for peanuts... all part of the game. all tactically motivated to put asses in the seats and runs on the board. the options a team has dwarf what you can do with a horsey who can only move in an 'L'.

b) the concept of RT games certainly wasn't a novelty and it wouldn't have required a genius to make a board game where the players play as fast as their speed allows them, so a claim like the one above is absolutely ridiculous and can't be supported.

while little kids running around the yard playing cowboys and indians is a game, it lacks rules. doesn't take a genius to go 'bang bang, you're dead' but developing a balanced and omnipresent system to control that would be a tad difficult. even mum can't be everywhere at once and you know at some point someone is going to get a skinned knee or say 'nuh-uh... you so missed me'.

DnD has not, in fact, made the leap to real time.

it has. fer serious. the truth is out there!

That's like saying I'm a huge Daggerfall fan, but I would really like to see in which ways the series could be fucked. How about an action game? Shit, Battlespire tanked. How about another one? Yay! Critical hit! Oblivion is praised as the second coming of Jesus!

If he was actively advocating the 'fucking over' of the series, you'd have something resembling a point. see, it's a failing of your's when you try and go absolutist with other people's words. he's not entrenched and willing to die for this... just some words on a internet board... that, ya know, maybe a fallout game with real-time combat would not infact crush his entire universe or negate his outlook on life.

Someone who claims to be a "huge fan" of the series should understand that fucking with the components will definitely change the series, creating something different from the original. I don't think there is a single "huge fan" of any series who would like to see the series changed into something else. The "huge fan" comment is either bullshit or stupid.

you can be a fan and still accept that change will happen. hell, it's a guarantee in everything that ain't inert. if you want inert fallout, you know where to go and what to do. revel in it.

you can also be a fan of the first two and think 'hey, they're gonna change stuff... i think i'll have curry takeaway for dinner tonight'. seriously, you can be that detached... it's very zen.

RT is as artificial as anything else on that list. You simply can't jump in the middle of a battle and kill 10 creatures without breaking a sweat and worrying about exposing your back. You can't tell me that God of War's or Morrowind's combat is realistic, can you?

er... the passing of time in a linear fashion isn't really artificial. pretty sure it's a very important part of the natural world. does it add a new mechanic to combat and change it's nature as opposed to that of chess? sure does.

as for the god of war and morrowind comments... sweet 'kingcomrade gambit'... you fucking hurl fireballs and stab mars in the throat while dancing on his shoulder... it's never going to approach 'realistic'. is it less of an abstraction than turn-based is... yes.

Starcraft is real time chess? You've gotta be kidding me.

shares more similarities with chess than say, oh just to tie things up, baseball. in what way is it not a modern approximation of chess?

 

[mister lamat]

3-way on the telephone is equally awesome.

the strategy and tactical decision making required to talk your grrlfriend into a three-way can only be done in real-time.

turn-based is for prudes.

 

[Crichton]

For fuck's sakes. Dungeon Master was either the first and one of the first real time RPGs. That was back in 1987. Almost 10 years before Fallout. There is no such thing as a "more technologically advanced" combat mode.

Simultaneity may not require anything extra of a computer, but it requires a computer. People have been grappling with this issue since the beginnings of wargames and even doing an old prussian kriegspiel with moderators, it presents a huge problem in interpretation. For two players with no umpire, it's almost hopeless.

A lot of wargaming groups were big into simultaneous movement in the 60s and 70s (Column, Line and Square being the most famous example), but even with all kinds of conditional statements and map-marking, it just doesn't work without a computer to keep track of everything. The closest anyone comes these days is alternating movement with reaction moves and simultaneous fire/melee.

So having computers gives us the option of simultaneity that we didn't have before. Given how much trouble we table-top wargamers have with the artifacts of alternate movement, some older wargamers are really shocked when they hear that any computer games are turn-based.

a) Chess is one of the most advanced strategy games ever created. No RT game has managed to come close to chess' levels of depth, complexity, and the number of tactical options, which explains why the game survived for centuries.

This is just crazy, chess isn't even as "advanced" as an old avalon hill board game, let alone a man's game. It has absolutely no depth; small board, no terrain, two sides that are almost exactly identical; it's got so few options that the best chess player can't think at all, it's a computer.

It's survived for centuries because it's simple and elegant. Craps has been around for even longer and complexity ain't driving that either.

 

[Jasede]

what

 

[merry andrew]

I know everyone knows this but I want to say it anyway: playing a cRPG isn't LARPing.

 

[Tinkies]

This is just crazy, chess isn't even as "advanced" as an old avalon hill board game, let alone a man's game. It has absolutely no depth; small board, no terrain, two sides that are almost exactly identical; it's got so few options that the best chess player can't think at all, it's a computer.

It's survived for centuries because it's simple and elegant. Craps has been around for even longer and complexity ain't driving that either.

what

 

[Bradylama]

baseball is far more complex and strategic compared to chess. real-time too. the higher level to which you take it, the greater the difference between the two. from who you put on first, to which free agents you draft and right down to how much you charge for peanuts... all part of the game. all tactically motivated to put asses in the seats and runs on the board. the options a team has dwarf what you can do with a horsey who can only move in an 'L'.

You just described managing baseball, not actually playing baseball.

 

[mister lamat]

is the coach not part of the team?

a hundred years ago with honus wagner and a distinct lack of black folk... mebbe the guys on the field were all there was to the game. times change. i think that makes it apt. i think the concept of moving pieces around a board and moving players and staff around to obtain a goal are incredibly similar and the difference between the terms 'play' and 'manage' aren't really all that clear.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

a) Chess is one of the most advanced strategy games ever created. No RT game has managed to come close to chess' levels of depth, complexity, and the number of tactical options, which explains why the game survived for centuries.

b) the concept of RT games certainly wasn't a novelty and it wouldn't have required a genius to make a board game where the players play as fast as their speed allows them, so a claim like the one above is absolutely ridiculous and can't be supported.

Neither of those are my position, Jackass.

DnD has not, in fact, made the leap to real time. The ruleset remains turn-based for many obvious reasons. Bioware did make several RT DnD games, which completely fucked up the rules, creating completely different game mechanics. It should be obvious to anyone who played BG and ToEE. The reason that Bio (and other companies) made these games is not because RT offered more - in fact, it offered much less - but because RT is more appealing to the casual players.

I'm sorry, so is your point that there ISN'T any realtime DnD, or that there IS realtime DnD. My only point was that realtime DnD does exist. Anything else is you jerking off.

That's like saying I'm a huge Daggerfall fan, but I would really like to see in which ways the series could be fucked. How about an action game? Shit, Battlespire tanked. How about another one? Yay! Critical hit! Oblivion is praised as the second coming of Jesus!

Someone who claims to be a "huge fan" of the series should understand that fucking with the components will definitely change the series, creating something different from the original. I don't think there is a single "huge fan" of any series who would like to see the series changed into something else. The "huge fan" comment is either bullshit or stupid.

I don't care if they "change the series." Being a huge fan doesn't equal being a fanatical puritan zealot with added delusions of self-importance. I'm a fan of the setting, the themes, the characters, the dialog, the morality ( or lack thereof ) present in the game. Combat resolution doesn't change the core of the game to me. Everything I love about fallout can still be there in realtime. Saying it has to be turnbased to be fallout doesn't jive with me, and I've made that clear.

It's an opinion, and it's not "dumb."

Do I really have to explain this one too? Is there anyone here who believes that this statement is not the biggest load of crap you've ever seen? Say "aye" and I'll gladly explain.

I'm glad you still think turnbased combat is relevant and efficient. I don't think it is. Sure it's a dynamic that works well and is even mandatory for some games. But an RPG doesn't have to be turnbased to be an RPG, and I don't think Fallout has to be turnbased.

I'm entitled to that opinion.

Games are loaded with artificial concepts: hit points, no eating/drinking/sleeping, spells memorization, carrying enough junk to open a store, defeating armies and dragons, etc.

RT is as artificial as anything else on that list. You simply can't jump in the middle of a battle and kill 10 creatures without breaking a sweat and worrying about exposing your back. You can't tell me that God of War's or Morrowind's combat is realistic, can you?

I disagree. I think realtime is less artificial than stopping time for as long as it takes to do whatever the hell it is you're going to do. And, it is. Does that mean that the rest of the game is realistic? ofcourse not, and i never said it was. Most of this is you just jerkin' off again.

Starcraft is real time chess? You've gotta be kidding me. To be honest, I don't even know where to start here, but this is the dumbest thing you've posted here today. Anyway, need I continue?

Like most zealots, you're a literalist. Is StarCraft literally realtime chess? No. Does StarCraft contain many if not all of the dynamics that compose chess? It does.

let me spell it out for you, oh mighty self-righteous jackass.

All tactical strategy games can trace their origins back to chess. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sure there's more variety in goals, the graphics got flashier ( god forbid ), and perspective changed. But spiritually, StarCraft is just chess.

Believe it or not.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

But back in the day, a realtime rpg wasn't even an option. We're talkin' pnp and generation 1 here, not some of our "silverage" favorites like daggerfall or fallout.

For fuck's sakes. Dungeon Master was either the first and one of the first real time RPGs. That was back in 1987. Almost 10 years before Fallout. There is no such thing as a "more technologically advanced" combat mode.

There were roleplaying and computer roleplaying games before 1987. Shocking I know. I consider Dungeon Master as at least Gen II. The fact that it had a gui pretty much removes it from gen I.

A computer is more technologically advanced than a notebook, dice, and a pen. But I guess that's me being rediculous again. As computing power increased, it made possible more complex systems. I don't think that's a rediculous or dumb statement.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Here is a mirror discussion on ESF (already locked though).
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index ... pic=708482

baseball is far more complex and strategic compared to chess.

Prove it.

while little kids running around the yard playing cowboys and indians is a game, it lacks rules.

Nice try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_ballgame

DnD has not, in fact, made the leap to real time.

it has. fer serious. the truth is out there!

Are you capable of grasping the difference between a product and what someone can do with it? Here is a hint: I can make a hat out of a newspaper, but that doesn't mean that the newspaper should be considered a fashion company.

If he was actively advocating the 'fucking over' of the series, you'd have something resembling a point.

And if you were interested in anything other than proving me wrong, we'd have had a lovely conversation.

you can also be a fan of the first two and think 'hey, they're gonna change stuff... i think i'll have curry takeaway for dinner tonight'. seriously, you can be that detached... it's very zen.

You'll be surprised but I'm completely detached from the fate of the franchise. I don't post on the official forums and the only reason I'm arguing in this thread is the overly stupid MVB's comments.

as for the god of war and morrowind comments... sweet 'kingcomrade gambit'... you fucking hurl fireballs and stab mars in the throat while dancing on his shoulder... it's never going to approach 'realistic'. is it less of an abstraction than turn-based is... yes.

As long as we agree that both are abstractive, there is no reason to argue which one is more or less abstractive than the other.

Starcraft is real time chess? You've gotta be kidding me.

shares more similarities with chess than say, oh just to tie things up, baseball. in what way is it not a modern approximation of chess?

You really think that this argument will fly? Should we say that all board games, even Monopoly, are like chess because they are very different from sport games?

 

[Vault Dweller]

a) Chess is one of the most advanced strategy games ever created. No RT game has managed to come close to chess' levels of depth, complexity, and the number of tactical options, which explains why the game survived for centuries.

This is just crazy, chess isn't even as "advanced" as an old avalon hill board game, let alone a man's game. It has absolutely no depth; small board, no terrain, two sides that are almost exactly identical; it's got so few options that the best chess player can't think at all, it's a computer.

It's survived for centuries because it's simple and elegant. Craps has been around for even longer and complexity ain't driving that either.

Huh? Tell me it's a joke I didn't get.

 

[elander_]

I'm sorry, so is your point that there ISN'T any realtime DnD, or that there IS realtime DnD. My only point was that realtime DnD does exist. Anything else is you jerking off.

And in what way does realtime DnD helps you role-play better than turn-base DnD. Sure you have the added chalenged of trying to select a companion with your mouse before he runs over than mortal trap like a lunatic to kill a rat. It's like watching shit fall in your eyes but it happens in real-time so you have to feel better. The challenge to select a menu and make him stop from doing crap is a trilling addition to game design.

So pray tell me what game allows you to roleplay combat better than a TB game?

I disagree. I think realtime is less artificial than stopping time for as long as it takes to do whatever the hell it is you're going to do. And, it is. Does that mean that the rest of the game is realistic? ofcourse not, and i never said it was. Most of this is you just jerkin' off again.

Agian what you are discussing has nothing to do with Fallout or roleplaying. Fallout is TB for a purpose and that is role-playing. If that wasn't the purpose then maybe Fallout devs would make it RT but they didn't.

 

[Mr. Van_Buren]

I'm sorry, so is your point that there ISN'T any realtime DnD, or that there IS realtime DnD. My only point was that realtime DnD does exist. Anything else is you jerking off.

And in what way does realtime DnD helps you role-play better than turn-base DnD. Sure you have the added chalenged of trying to select a companion with your mouse before he runs over than mortal trap like a lunatic to kill a rat. It's like watching shit fall in your eyes but it happens in real-time so you have to feel better. The challenge to select a menu and make him stop from doing crap is a trilling addition to game design.

So pray tell me what game allows you to roleplay combat better than a TB game?

I disagree. I think realtime is less artificial than stopping time for as long as it takes to do whatever the hell it is you're going to do. And, it is. Does that mean that the rest of the game is realistic? ofcourse not, and i never said it was. Most of this is you just jerkin' off again.

Agian what you are discussing has nothing to do with Fallout or roleplaying. Fallout is TB for a purpose and that is role-playing. If that wasn't the purpose then maybe Fallout devs would make it RT but they didn't.

Fallout is TB for a purpose and that is role-playing.

So by that logic Dungeon Master isn't an RPG? I'm sorry. I'm sure you had a point here but I think you let it down. Just clearify and come back on this.

As for shit hitting me in the eyes in realtime ... at least I didn't have to wait for everything on the map to move indivisually and then get hit with shit in the eyes.

Saying that stupid AI only happens in realtime betrays the number of times I've taken a burst of 9mm in the back.

 

[Vault Dweller]

a) Chess is one of the most advanced strategy games ever created. No RT game has managed to come close to chess' levels of depth, complexity, and the number of tactical options, which explains why the game survived for centuries.

b) the concept of RT games certainly wasn't a novelty and it wouldn't have required a genius to make a board game where the players play as fast as their speed allows them, so a claim like the one above is absolutely ridiculous and can't be supported.

Neither of those are my position, Jackass.

I know. These are my explanations of why what you posted was incorrect, to say the least.

I'm sorry, so is your point that there ISN'T any realtime DnD, or that there IS realtime DnD. My only point was that realtime DnD does exist. Anything else is you jerking off.

Role-playing an illiterate poster already? My point was that DnD, as a ruleset, neither adopted nor created a RT version.

I don't care if they "change the series." Being a huge fan...

Say no more.

Everything I love about fallout can still be there in realtime.

We shall see soon enough.

But an RPG doesn't have to be turnbased to be an RPG, and I don't think Fallout has to be turnbased.

I'm entitled to that opinion.

You are. However, that's not why I picked this quote. Here is why: "... doing away with a combat system invented before automated computing made "turns" more or less obselete. "

I disagree. I think realtime is less artificial than stopping time for as long as it takes to do whatever the hell it is you're going to do. And, it is. Does that mean that the rest of the game is realistic? ofcourse not, and i never said it was. Most of this is you just jerkin' off again.

What's with the "jerking off" obsession? Anyway, stopping time is an abstraction, not having time to do anything other than clicking is a much worse abstraction, don't you think? Imagine playing BG2 without the pause. You simply need some time, either a pause or a turn end, to be able to play a game intelligently.

Like most zealots, you're a literalist. Is StarCraft literally realtime chess? No. Does StarCraft contain many if not all of the dynamics that compose chess? It does.

Literalist? You mean that I actually read what people write instead of guessing what they could have possibly meant? Yes, I am. You said that "starcraft, which is nothing if not a real time chess game". If you want to take it back, be my guest. Overall, your line of defence seems to be constantly shifting your position and claiming that you actually meant something else or didn't mean that at all. Nice.

 

[elander_]

Fallout is TB for a purpose and that is role-playing.
So by that logic Dungeon Master isn't an RPG? I'm sorry. I'm sure you had a point here but I think you let it down. Just clearify and come back on this.

What is there about in Dungeon Master that you consider an rpg? It's a primitive rpg, from which other rpgs evolved into TB games. Doesn't that makes you look a bit retarded for defending that RT is more advanced than TB? And yet we are your friends and patiently try to explain why you are wrong.

As for shit hitting me in the eyes in realtime ... at least I didn't have to wait for everything on the map to move indivisually and then get hit with shit in the eyes.
Saying that stupid AI only happens in realtime betrays the number of times I've taken a burst of 9mm in the back.

And that happens because you don't control your companions in Fallout. One more reason in favor of a good TB game.

So are you going to tell me what game is better at roleplaying than a good TB game or not?

 

[Fez]

If only Kasparov knew to pawn rush Deep Blue. Kekekekeke

 

[Jinxed]

This is almost as good as watching someone getting a ridiculous beating in UFC. Van Buren, dude, tap already while your arms are still in their sockets.

 

[mister lamat]

Prove it.

i did. greater level of variables and outcomes for those variables which you need to predict or at the very least recognize and prepare for.

Nice try.

not sure what a game played by mayans prior to spain getting all up in their grill has to do with little kids making rules up on the fly about what constitutes a 'headshot'. now, if you're implying that they agreed on rules to maintain flow and create goals in the game... well, duh. putting a ball through a hoop is far different from representing armed combat though... hence, you fail.

i'd have gone with something similar to roman gladiator matches recreating specific battles... but given the lack of control 'a player' would have and the amount of limb-hacking i wouldn't really call it a game. still, probably the closest approximation of an rts prior to the computer.

Are you capable of grasping the difference between a product and what someone can do with it? Here is a hint: I can make a hat out of a newspaper, but that doesn't mean that the newspaper should be considered a fashion company.

so, there can be real time dnd games but dnd cannot be real time? the people who control the product can chose to branch out and try new things, but said things are no longer considered their product?

if your newspaper company decides to start making baseball caps in addition to the newspaper, they are in fact in the fashion business... or at the very least are now into merchandising. not every considers red sox caps haute coutre as i do.

see, when ya go absolutist, ya fail.

And if you were interested in anything other than proving me wrong, we'd have had a lovely conversation.

there's no room to have 'a lovely conversation' with the tone and content of what you've written. it's reactionary and obtuse.

You'll be surprised but I'm completely detached from the fate of the franchise. I don't post on the official forums and the only reason I'm arguing in this thread is the overly stupid MVB's comments.

detached people don't refer to minor mechanics changes as 'fucking over the series'. nor do we tag people for disagreeing with us. we also don't really consider the wants and ideas of others about the series as 'overly stupid'. we refer to them as their opinion and debate the merits thereof... seriously, it's happened a few times in this thread with people are probably even a little more passionate about the series than you are.

just look at the title of the thread, hoss. does he call tb obsolete? no. he comments as to why others may consider it 'a relic'. everything else is inference... i told you that some lessons on spin were in order. this would be a case.

you have a really strong desire to see fallout turn out the way you want. that's cool. don't blame ya for it. probably a good thing that some people feel that way. looks like you channeled it into other avenues, so maybe putting away your 'arguing hat' when dealing with the plebs might be a good idea... especially when you ain't doing all that well with it.

As long as we agree that both are abstractive, there is no reason to argue which one is more or less abstractive than the other.

we weren't talking about which was 'more' or 'less' of an abstraction. i was. you were claiming the linear passage of time was unrealistic. if you wanna say that hucking fireballs doesn't really pan out on this plane of existence i'm there with ya. other than that, your 'comment' was rife with dumbfuckery.

You really think that this argument will fly? Should we say that all board games, even Monopoly, are like chess because they are very different from sport games?

counters and pieces being used to represent a player on the board as an avatar. check. turn-based format. check. the taking and holding of specific territory on a game board to achieve one's goals. check. played on a square board... check that one too.

got more in common with it than, oh just to stay on meme, baseball.

if you're asking whether or not all gaming recreations of warfare are in some way related in chess or at the least draw from ideas created of that well-spring... why yes, the argument will fly

 

[Mr Happy]

The argument is that TB limitations can't model someone who shoots and runs at the same time or someone that while falling reaches his hand to grab a rope.

Why not? When I become a rich billionare and champion of the free world, the rpgs I finance will totally have this feature.